Yes, Virginia, there is Piracy

Andrew Rens’ blog, Ex Africa Semper Aliquid Novi has a post today on “Piracy in Africa,” which deplores the North/South battle where the North (developed countries with large intellectual property industries) encourages the South (Africa) to prevent copyright infringement by increasing copyright enforcement.

While I agree with the author’s point that African countries should not be forced to use their limited resources to get already over-bloated (and in my opinion rather useless) foreign industries, I also believe that the post deserves some criticism.  I encourage you to check out his post; it has some good points, and it’s only fair that you see his whole side rather than just the pieces I pick at.

Piracy, there are many who have taken issue with using this term in regards to copyright infringement.  Rens briefly alludes to this at the end of his post.  In terms of the few examples of infringement mentioned by him: downloading music, copying CDs or DVDs for personal use, using a copied version of Windows, I agree, this is not piracy.  However, Africa does have levels of copyright infringement than can legitimately be called piracy.  In Nigeria, for example, huge optical disc plants churn out incredible numbers of unauthorized copies of CDs, DVDs and VCDs.  The quantities of unauthorized copies can far out-number the amount of authorized copies on the market.  These optical disc plants do this solely for the sake of profit, often times delivering less than quality goods.  This is piracy.

It is these infringing materials that prevent the real threat to copyright in Africa, not downloads (a developed-country problem).  These types of infringing materials do not hurt the “large monopolies” Rens fingers as the supposed beneficiaries of tighter enforcement laws.  These infringing materials are very often unauthorized copies of local artists’ works.  These infringing materials hurt the local industries, the barely-bourgeoning, attempting to grow, potential industries.

Rens also says, “The 547 million people living in Sub-Saharan Africa without electricity (World Bank) have no use  for CDs and DVDs.”  For a statement from someone living in Africa, this really surprised me.  Any African knows that you do not need electricity to have use for such things.  There are always work-arounds; things like small generators and car batteries.  I have seen mud huts with satellite dishes, thatched roofs with antennas reaching to the sky, for the battery powered television far down below.  The biggest problem with DVDs and CDs is not the lack of electricity, but how easily they get scratched.  But for that, there’s cassette tapes, which can also easily be reproduced.

In terms of the developed world pushing down on developing countries to enact stricter copyright laws, to spend more on enforcement, and to protect these foreign rights, Rens is correct, there are “high barriers to joining the Information Society” and they do “require us to critically examine” attempts to “impose greater barriers to access to knowledge.”  But, these laws also play an important role in local economies, for the benefit of the local people.  We cannot overlook this.

[I have completely ignored the other aspect of benefits that come with strengthening IP laws, which is of course encouraging foreign investment, in order to focus on the purely domestic aspects.  I’d be happy to explore the other side more if anyone should be interested in discussing it.]

Part III: Developing Decent Digital Distribution Solutions

Last month, we did a follow-up to a November post discussing a class at Vanderbilt University in which class participants were working in groups to develop solutions for dealing with illegal digital downloads.  In the follow-up, we looked at Group One's solution and most of Group Two's solution.  (Nigerian internet prevented any further viewing of the class presentations.)  We now bring you the finale, Group Three's solution.

This ipper will admit that she tends to be a little cynical when it comes to dealing with music downloads and trying to "fix" the current situation.  That being said, if this summary seems too critical, our readers may wish to check out Group Three's solution for themselves.  (You can watch the entire class' presentations here.)

Group 3

Group Three presented a program that included many things already tried or currently being tried.  Their program seemed like something that would garner a lot of support from the RIAA, very little support from the Lessig-wing, and some criticism from the EFF.

Before getting into the detail of their solution, it must first be noted that the group did say they want to encourage and free up music for fair use.  They are not trying to fight small infringements that should be protected by fair use, but rather address the large-scale infringement that hurts the music industry.  The group also pointed out, in passing, that with the increased ease of reaching consumers presented by digital distribution, musicians may not need record labels in the future.  (Isn't that exactly what the record labels are afraid of?) 

The group then went on to explain that their way of address this large scale infringement is top-down legislation with tighter restrictions on music.  As they explained it, "it's the government's responsibility to protect its creative population."  Their suggestions: crippling peer-to-peer (P2P) networks, stronger DRM protection,  and increased copyright education in schools.

Restructuring Peer-to-Peer Networks

P2P networks would be reverted back to a former version of themselves, available only through certain organizations such as universities or employers.  All users would be required to register with the network and the network would be responsible for how the users used the networks.  Networks would be notified if users conducted illegal file sharing on the network.  The networks would then be required to block the users, sort of like the developing program between the RIAA and ISP providers that would slow down or shut off the internet of those using it to infringe copyright.  As the group put it, consumers would be "pressured into using P2P networks only for legal activity."

One stakeholder in attendance at the class' presentation suggested the book, The Spider and the Starfish by Ori Brafman and Rod A. Beckstrom.  He explained to the group that this book does a great job of outlining why P2P can not be controlled in the way suggested by the group.  The group suggested that the reason P2P cannot be controlled is because the laws do not support such control.  To fix the problem, the group said, "regulate it more," give the government more "freedom" (the group's word) to track P2P and go after people who are using P2P for illegal purposes.  Privacy issues anyone?  How long before the EFF is all over this proposed legislation?

Adjusting DRM

The group did not just advocate strengthening DRM; they also advocated reducing it.  Sound like a paradox?  What they suggested was a tiered structure in which consumers can choose a price level for their downloads.  The higher the price, the less DRM protections, the lower the price, the more DRM protections.  It's sort of a different take on pay-per-use.  The group explained that they want the consumers to be able to use the media in the way it was meant to be used, listened to, watched, etc, but not change it or manipulate it.  More of what Lessig would call Read/Only art and less Read/Write.  (Some sure-fire opponents to this manner of using art here and here.)

The group explained that the DRM would not stop consumers from doing anything that would constitute fair use, and used putting an i-tunes song on a cd for a friend as an example.  (We'll skip the issue some groups might have with whether or not that's fair use.)  How will the computer/software/DRM know that the user is making a cd for a friend and not a cd to sell?  How will it know that the way in which that consumer is using the track would constitute a parody or a de minimums use?  In short, how can the DRM be programmed to decide if the consumer is using the file in a way that would constitute fair use?

Increased Education

The last section of the group's program was increased copyright education in schools and in the community.

In Schools

This suggestion was very similar to one made by Group One in their presentation.  Start teaching children at a young age, in elementary school, about the evils of illegal downloading and the piracy aspects of copyright law.  As the children get older, bring in more details of the law and increase the students' understanding of copyright.  Group Three got a little more specific and suggested including actual copyright cases in this instruction so that students can see what uses are and are not allowed.

The Community - Rock the Schools

The community part of the education would come in a series of concerts the group titled "Rock the Schools."  They described this concert series as similar to Live Aid, raising both awareness of the evils of copyright infringement and money for copyright education in schools.  The concert would include popular musicians, industry stakeholders like the RIAA, politicians and other important public figures.  (Creatively demonstrated in the group's power point presentation by some neat photo remixes.)  The concert series would raise money through ticket sales, donations, merchandise, at home pledges and sale of the concert on itunes.   How much could actually be raised in donations is questionable. 

Wrap-up

Overall, there's some doubt as to the effectiveness of this program.  There's already a lot of backlash towards restrictive DRMs, increased regulation brings in a lot of other legal issues.  Education is being attempted and may show results in the future as norms towards downloading change.  As for Rock the Schools, it's very likely that more people consider funding AIDS research or medication for poverty-stricken children as a more worthy cause than protecting millionaires from copyright infringement.  (But as it says above: cynical author here.)

Following the French?

Earlier this month, the American Bar Association Journal reported in a little article that the RIAA is going to stop randomly suing people for illegal music downloading.  Seems the RIAA finally realized that tactic was not producing the desired results and getting them extra problems.  This is good news.  However, the new approach is not without its own problems.

"The RIAA now plans a more practical enforcement effort concerning illegal downloads," the article explains.  And just what is this more practical enforcement?

"With the help of Internet service providers, those who repeatedly download music illegally and ignore ISP warnings are expected to have their Internet service first slowed down and then stopped entirely..."

That's practical?!  In a country that historically places such a high value on freedom of speech, independence and privacy, in a society that revolves around technology, this "practical" solution is opening several very large cans of worms.

As it turns out, the solution may not be quite as draconian as the quote makes it sound.  According to the Wall Street Journal, the new plan is actually a series of agreements between the RIAA and different ISP providers.  The deal is that the RIAA will stop suing consumers and the ISP providers will start contacting customers who appear to be illegally uploading copyright protected material.  If the customers ignore the warnings, the ISP providers can slow down and eventually cut-off the internet service.

The IPKat reported some months ago on a similar plan in France.  In late October, the French Senate approved a law that would cut off the internet service of people who illegally download copyright protected material.  Under the French model, internet access revocation is the final out in a three-strikes law.  Strike one: warning email.  Strike two: warning snail mail letter.  Strike three: the dark ages for an entire year.

In general, people seem to like the idea of receiving warnings and a chance to stop infringing behavior better than lawsuits.  However, many have also expressed some concerns.  French Senator Retailleau decried cutting off internet as discriminatory.  He described internet access as an "essential commodity" and its removal as "traumatic."  Readers of IPKat also commented on the variety of privacy issues raised by this method of fighting infringement.

Groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Knowledge express similar concerns about the American plan and raise some others.  The president of Public Knowledge is worried about the due process of the system, stating, "we want to make certain that customers are not cut off from their Internet service or have their service altered solely on the basis of a claim by a copyright holder that file sharing is taking place."  The EFF points out that the punishment here seems to greatly outweigh the crime.  Guess Gilbert and Sullivan wouldn't approve.

Some proponents of the new arrangements believe that the warnings given to infringers by their internet providers will be enough to prevent the customers from continuing their illegal behavior.  If this is true, the system is fine because the ISP providers will never need to reach the controversial step of shutting off someone's internet service completely.  But what happens when someone decides to call their bluff?

 

 

Other related links:

Will France Introduce Digital Guillotine in Europe
French Internet Law Clashes with EU Position
RIAA Shuts Down its Lawsuit Machine
Three Strikes, Three Countries: France, Japan and Sweden
RIAA to Stop Suing Music Fans, Cut Them Off Instead
RIAA Confirms It Will Take Piracy Fight to ISPs

Follow-Up to: Developing Decent Digital Distribution Solutions

In our previous post, Developing Decent Digital Distribution Solutions, Ip's What's Up reported about a Vanderbilt University class called "Stealing in Music City" where the students had to develop a new digital distribution system for the music industry.  The three student groups presented their solutions last week Tuesday, December 2nd.  The video of their presentations is now available on YouTube and VUCast.

The video itself is almost an hour long, and Ip's What's Up doubts many of its readers have time to watch the whole thing.  We wanted to summarize the groups' projects for you.  Unfortunately, the Nigerian internet didn't like that plan.  So, we offer you a summary of the first group and most of the second group.  (Our apologies to Group 3.  We are sure you put a lot of effort into your project as well and will report on it as soon as we're able.)

Groups one and two each consisted of three, visibly nervous, first-year students.  It is apparent from their presentations that they learned a lot about copyright and the music industry during their semester and that they put a lot of work into developing their solutions.  We hope their professors are proud of them and will continue the seminar in the future.

Group 1

The first group pulled ideas to improve the music industry from a variety of sources.  They talked about revising the copyright law to make it easier for artists, consumers and labels to understand, particularly the areas relating to ownership, fair use and the public domain.  That's probably good for everyone, except the attorneys.

On the production end, the group adopted the licensing model mentioned by David Byrne in a Wired.com article.  Through the group's version of this model, artists could only license their recordings to a label for a limited time, rather than assigning the entire copyright to the label.  (The label would not be allowed to own any masters.)  The group adopted this plan because they believe labels play an important role in promoting artists but also think artists should have more say in their careers.

On the distribution side, the group incorporated two ideas supported by Professor Michael Bressman.  (Professor Bressman teaches the IP Clinic at Vanderbilt law and visited the undergraduate class as a guest speaker.)  The group suggested an increase in the number of legal online music distribution sites and that these sites should use monthly fees rather than per song payment arrangements.  The group seemed unaware that there are more music download sites than iTunes, but perhaps that was just their example.  [Some music sites: iTunes (the standard), eMusic (which is monthly subscribtions), amazon.com (drm free), napster (the newer, legal version), payplay.fm, puretracks, there are many more.  Note: Some of these will not work outside the US.]

The group also looked at changing social norms, turning illegal downloading into something un-cool instead of something normal.  The ideas here were a bit reminiscent of anti-drug and anti-gang programs (Downloading Abuse Resistance Education?), and made this Ipper feel rather old.  Their suggestion: include internet safety and copyright in the existing elementary school computer classes.  These classes already teach students how to type and use the internet; they should teach how to do it safely and legally.

In addition to incorporating music downloading etiquette into computer classes, the government should also use things like pamphlets and public service announcements to educate people about piracy.  They suggested these tools be a bit less extreme and a bit more honest than the RIAA's versions.

Overall, it seemed the group attempted to address several different aspects of the music downloading issue: the relationships between people in the industry, the availability of legal downloadable music for consumers, and the social norms that still seem to lean towards acceptability for illegal downloading.

Group 2

Group 2 took a different approach and developed a unique system for digital distribution.  They described it as using the technology of file sharing but ensuring artists and labels get paid.  Their system consists of a government run network that sounds sort of like a Facebook for record labels and publishing companies.

Record labels, publishing companies and independent artists with more than twelve songs can sign-up to be part of the network.  They will get their own page that they can design however they'd like.  They can use the page to promote different artists, activities and events, and to offer downloads of their catalogues.  (The reason for the minimum of twelve songs has to do with balancing the costs and benefits of the system for independent artists.)

The consumers choose from one of various subscription levels.  Each subscription allows them to share a certain number of files per month, with the platinum level giving them unlimited access.  The prices for these subscriptions are intended to be fairly low in order to shift the economic supply curve: lower cost = more downloads.  It's a little confusing if the "sharing" involves offering tracks already in consumers libraries for upload/download by another, or if it really just means downloading from one of the label/publisher pages.  (This may be clarified later in the group's presentation, if anybody is able to watch the whole thing and can add some clarity to this point, please leave a comment.)

The government is in charge of setting up this network and managing it, as well as acting as a sort of collecting society for all transactions on the network.  The group chose the government to run the network in order to eliminate the cost created by a middle-man like iTunes and because they felt the government would bring a certain neutrality, less focused on profit and more focused on boosting the economy and supporting the industry.

Although similar in some ways to existing on-line stores, their system seems to present some unique ideas.  If it does indeed involve file sharing with a collecting society-type entity tracking, it offers some definite benefits over existing on-line music options, like locating those hard to find remixes.  There would be a lot of details to work out before such a system would be viable (such as ensuring that tracks are properly identified), but it's certainly an interesting idea to ponder.

 

 

{related to digital distribution...]

Alphabet War

About a month ago, Ip's What's Up posted an entry about the status of collecting societies in Nigeria.  The main issue is the ongoing feud between the two former collecting societies, MCSN and PMRS, and the Nigerian Copyright Commission (NCC).  Well, it looks like the beef is getting bigger.

The Guardian newspaper published a story this past Friday about allegations flying back and forth between MCSN and the NCC.  The news article is a bit cryptic, especially for those of us who are not fluent in Nigerian English, but it appears that the NCC and MCSN are on opposing sides in two different matters.

MCSN v. NCC

First, there is the old matter of MCSN suing the NCC (as its counterpart, PMRS is doing) over the Collecting Society Regulations and the section of the Copyright Act that authorizes these regulations.  (For those who are interested, the MCSN suit is: Musical Copyright Society of Nigeria LTD/GTE v. Nigerian Copyright Commission, SUIT NO. FHC/L/CS/478/2008, but this Ipper has no idea where you can find any reporting on the case.)  Basically, MCSN claims that the relevant sections of the Nigerian Copyright Act violate MCSN's fundamental human rights as protected by Sections 40 and 44 of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution, as well as violating Articles 10 and 14 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.

NCC v. MCSN

The Guardian article discusses a second conflict between the NCC and MCSN.  According to the article, the NCC is currently investigating MCSN based on a complaint from the International Federation of Phonographic Industries.  The complaint alleges that MCSN is pirating films, both reproducing them and publishing them.  (Publishing, under the Nigerian Copyright Act, is making a work available to the public.)

MCSN claims that this complaint never existed and was only fabricated by the NCC in order to make it appear that the NCC's raids on the MCSN offices were justified.  NCC says it's legitimate.  MCSN says that NCC is harassing MCSN and its affiliates by questioning collecting societies in the UK (Performing Rights Society and Mechanical Copyright Protection Society) and raiding MCSN offices in Nigeria.  NCC says it had to question the UK societies because MCSN claimed to have received authorization for their alleged pirating behavior from those societies.

Clear as Mud

This Ipper is quite confused by all of this, and doesn't really know what to believe.  Both parties involved in this battle have been known to spin things a little bit away from the truth.  What is certain is that MCSN does not have authorization to act as a collecting society, and that, in general, the NCC has authority to conduct investigations in matters of alleged piracy.  The Director General has stated that MCSN cannot receive authorization to become a collecting society until it meets transparency requirements.  MCSN seems to think there it is actually some sort of NCC vendetta that is preventing MCSN from receiving authorization.  Both parties claim to be acting in the best interests of copyright and the artists.  Maybe some readers can shed some light on the situation.

One thing is clear, whatever is going on here, it's not doing anybody any good, especially not the artists.

They're Your Pirates, You're Responsible

We are all aware that intellectual property issues are global issues, but do we realize on how many levels this is true?  Sometimes they go beyond clashes in countries' policies and down to a very basic level of individuals' actions.

It's no secret that many of Nigeria's counterfeit-producing optical disc plants are owned by Chinese.  What is surprising, at least to this Ipper, is that Nigerians seem to be blaming China for this fact.  Indirectly, the presence of Chinese-owned optical disc plants in Nigeria is China's fault.  The plants have relocated due to increased copyright enforcement in Asia.  But, there is likely no Chinese policy that says those wishing to create pirated discs should go to Nigeria, and depending on where the companies incorporated, the Chinese government may have little to no control over them.  Yet, in his opinion piece for The Daily Sun, Tunde Thompson lumps Chinese-owned optical disc plants together with a string of failed Chinese government sponsored projects. 

IP is very important in Nigeria; some sources claim over 60% of the population get their income from creative industries.  Piracy is certainly a hot-button issue.  It seems the actions of a few Chinese citizens in Nigeria could damage relations between the two countries.  What can China do about it?  How far should one country stick its neck out to protect the intellectual property laws of another country?  And where do the pirates go next if Nigeria manages to crack down on them?

Nigeria and the Special Case of the USTR Special 301 Report Pt. 2

This is part two of a two part series looking at Nigeria's status in regards to the US Trade Representative Special 301 Report.  In part 1, we discussed the praise the Nigerian Copyright Commission and its Director General, Adebambo Adewopo, have received for getting Nigeria removed from the USTR Special 301 Report.  Today, we are looking at what's really going on.

Quick Recap

For two years, the Nigerian press and various government officials have been citing Nigeria's removal from the Special 301 List as proof of the Nigerian Copyright Commission's success in its war on piracy.  This "list" is the USTR Special 301 Report.  The report actually includes three lists, each containing countries whose laws or practices have adverse affects on IPRs: Priority Foreign Countries, Priority Watch List, and Watch List.

The Real Deal

It seems somewhere along the way, someone in Nigeria got confused.  Nigeria was never on any of the lists contained in the Special 301 Report, at least not this century.  Previous reports appear to only be available from the Library of Congress.  (Thank you to a very kind reference librarian at Vanderbilt University for that information.)  A few Special 301 Reports have mentioned Nigeria, but always to cite activities from the past year that have protected IPR.  (Special 301 Reports from 2002 through the current year are available at the USTR website; the 2001 report is available here.)

The closest Nigeria has come to being on these lists has been inclusion in the International Intellectual Property Alliance's (IIPA) reports suggesting which countries the USTR should place on the various lists contained in the Special 301 Report.  IIPA is a group of trade associations that, among other things, assists the US Trade Representative with its Special 301 Report.  IIPA prepares its own report of suggestions for the USTR to consider in compiling its report.  (IIPA Reports from 2001-2008 available here.)

IIPA first gave Nigeria a "special mention" in 2005, citing outrageous piracy levels in sound recordings and the proliferation of optical disc replicating plants.  Concerns over optical disc plants kept Nigeria in this section through 2006.  Last year, IIPA suggested putting Nigeria on the Watch List.  This year, the organization made the same suggestion.  So in fact, Nigeria is closer than ever to being listed in the Special 301 Report.  Rather than celebrating the "accomplishment" of being taken off a list they were never on, members of the Nigerian intellectual property community should be working hard to reverse the trend of increased attention from IIPA.  This will help Nigeria stay off the Special 301 Report lists.

Nigeria and the Special Case of the USTR Special 301 Report Pt. 1

For the past two years Nigeria has been praising the Nigerian Copyright Commission (NCC) and its Director General, Adebambo Adewopo, for getting Nigeria removed from the Special 301 Lists. But inside sources say Nigeria was not removed from the Special 301 List, because Nigeria was never on the Special 301 List. This makes the Ippers ask "what's up?"

A two part series, we'll look first at what the Nigerian Press has been saying, and then at what's really going on.

The Special 301 List

What the Nigerians refer to as the Special 301 Lists is actually part of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) Special 301 Report. This report "highlights shortfalls in intellectual property protection" and "acknowledges progress" by US trading partners. (Spicy IP has a good overview of the Special 301 Report and the controversy surrounding it.) The Report includes the following lists of countries whose laws or practices have adverse affects on IPRs: Priority Foreign Countries, Priority Watch List, and Watch List.

Nigeria's "Removal"

The first reports of Nigeria's removal from the Special 301 List came in May 2007. A Nigerian newspaper, The Vanguard, and an online news source, nun gu entertainment, both carried the story. "US delists Nigeria from piracy blackist, as govt moves to enforce IP regulation," read the online headline. Both articles cited the Deputy Economic Consular at the US Embassy as the source of the news. The online story also carried a direct quote, "We have decided to keep Nigeria off any of the 301 lists this year." Keep Nigeria off, not remove.

From there, other articles, editorials and speeches included the news. An article in Sun News used the "delisting" as evidence that Adewopo was doing a great job at the NCC and anyone saying otherwise was involved in a smear campaign against him. Lagos IP law firm Aluko & Oyebode included the wonderful news in their July newsletter.

In a few short months the removal of Nigeria from the Special 301 List was being touted as one of the NCC's greatest achievements. The Chief Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Federation congratulated Adewopo on his achievement. The President of the Federation also commended the NCC for its anti-piracy work.

By the beginning of 2008, the story had changed a bit. Several papers carried an article citing a June 2007 letter from the Former US Ambassador to Nigeria as the source of the information about Nigeria's delisting. Added to this was also a statement from the Attorney General that "Government was aware that until now, the country had always been on the U.S. Special 301, adding that the President has deemed the Commission as deserving of commendation in creating an enabling environment for the country’s unprecedented delisting." (The same info was carried in Sunday Benjamin's article in The Daily Trust.)

Stories about Nigeria's amazing feat spread beyond the country's borders. AllAfrica.com picked it up just a few months ago:

Recently, the Nigeria Copyright Commission (NCC) got a rare pat on the back when the United States removed Nigeria from the Special 301 Lists of countries blacklisted for condoning intellectual property theft in recognition of the renewed battle against the increasing spate of piracy and counterfeiting.

In various seminars and paper presentations around the country, members of the Nigerian government continue to sing praises of the NCC's anti-piracy programs to the tune of the Special 301 delisting.

But the question remains, was Nigeria really removed from the lists in the USTR Special 301 Report?

Why Congress, Why Part II

As promised, we are returning to the PRO-IP bill to look at Congress's reasons for the bill.  This may be our last look at S. 3325; there's a lot of other interesting stuff going on in the international IP world (check out the sidebar).  Also, if you haven't already done so, please submit your thoughts on some good things about IP protection!

Here is a brief look at two more reasons Congress listed as its sense for why the US needed to strengthen its IP laws: (S. 3325 § 503.)

• effective criminal enforcement of the intellectual property laws against violations in all categories of works should be among the highest priorities of the Attorney General
  

Why?  Why should criminal enforcement of intellectual property be more important than violent crimes, drug issues or the government's favorite enemy, terrorism?  I'm not sure I can buy this reason.  How do others feel about it?

• terrorists and organized crime utilize piracy, counterfeiting, and infringement to fund some of their activities

Oh!  That's why.  The IP criminals are terrorists!  At first I was very skeptical about this; it was the government crying terrorism like the boy cried wolf.  But I looked into it a bit and found that there is some support for this claim.  Most of the information and studies are about 3 years old.  The reports seem to show two separate connections between terrorist organizations and copyright infringement:

(1) terrorists engage in piracy in the same manner that they engage in a variety of other illegal trade, such as arms trafficking or drug running,

(2) people who have been arrested for piracy have been supportive of or have leanings towards terrorist organizations.

I will agree then that piracy, counterfeiting and infringement funds terrorist activities.  If terrorists are fundraising with pirated goods just as they are with drugs, then yes, piracy is technically funding terrorism.  It’s also possible that pirates who support terrorist organizations might donate funds they raised from their piracy.  Again, this can technically be called piracy funding terrorism.  If the terrorists sold flowers, would we enact laws against those? 

As another author pointed out, copyright infringement is its own issue.  Yes, it is illegal, so yes, the government should address it.  But protecting the rights of creators should not be mixed up with anti-terrorism laws.  I’m sure all illegal activities can be linked together in some way.  Drug dealers might drive over the speed limit; people who drink under age might also jaywalk; and terrorists might engage in copyright infringement.  That doesn’t mean that the laws dealing with each of these crimes should be all mashed together.

As for the organized crime claim, this seems like a problem from a logic game.  If a group of people have organized their copyright infringement activities so that there are large-scale manufacturing plants and elaborate distribution networks, as is the case in Nigeria for example, are the pirates using organized crime to support their piracy, or are the criminals using piracy to support their organized crime?

For those who are interested, here are some further links for information on the terrorism/piracy connections:

the government claiming a connection (2005)

report of person engaged in infringement and supportive of Hezbollah (2006)

the scary stuff: RIAA video claiming the link (2008)

and something a bit reassuring: Current US AG’s take on the issue (2008)